To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps the Government have taken to help Maxwell pensioners.

We have succeeded in ensuring that all Maxwell pensioners have continued to receive their pensions in full while asset recovery work has progressed.

Will my right hon. Friend congratulate the liquidators and the Mirror Group trustees for recovering £84 million-worth of assets? That is a marvellous help to all the people in their later years who could do without worry, stress and tension. It is a magnificent example of the way in which the Government have worked closely with those two parties to ensure that—as was said in an earlier statement, not what the Minister has just told the House—all existing Maxwell pensioners should now receive their total benefit. That is marvellous.

Order. This is Question Time, not statement time.

I entirely endorse the point that my hon. Friend made and will certainly convey his congratulations. We are fully behind Sir Peter Webster, who is working on behalf of the Maxwell pensioners' trust to seek a global settlement of all outstanding issues. That will be very much in the interests of pensioners and we hope that he will succeed.

On 7 June last year, the Under-Secretary of State, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell), told the House:

"The long-term gap between the Maxwell pension scheme's assets and liabilities"—[Official Report, 7 June 1993; Vol. 226, c. 9.]

Order. The hon. Gentleman perhaps did not hear the statement that I made last Thursday. I do not want statements at the Dispatch Box or from the Back Benches. It is Question Time and, therefore, I am seeking brisk questions and brisk answers.

I apologise. Does the Secretary of State agree that last June it was calculated that the gap between assets and liabilities would be less than £100 million? In the light of recent out-of-court statements to the Maxwell pensioners' trust fund, is the Secretary of State now standing by that assessment or has it been readjusted? In the light of the answer that he gave the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) is he now saying that all the thousands of Maxwell pensioners will receive their pensions in full as a result of the recent settlements?

I understand the important point that the hon. Member makes. Of course a lot of work remains to be done, especially if a global settlement is to be achieved, or even more if it is not achieved. I understand that the scheme trustees are cautiously optimistic—that can be no more than an assessment on their part—that there is a reasonable chance that all their long-term obligations will ultimately be met if the present progress continues.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent modifications he has made to family credit.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the number of families receiving family credit; and how many families were receiving a family income supplement in 1979.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many awards of family credit have been made since the introduction of the scheme.

Three for the price of one, for the sake of brevity.

Can my hon. Friend's reply be interpreted as meaning that we are working, we have worked and we shall continue to work to ensure that those in greatest need receive that benefit?

Yes, and the benefit will continue to do its job very well.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the £40 child care disregard in family credit that is to be introduced in October will help 50,000 families back into work and will help 100,000 families who are already in work?

Yes, the provision for the child care disregard has been widely welcomed and will indeed help the number of families that my hon. Friend mentioned.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the family credit case load is more than 500,000—the largest ever—and that the number of awards has increased each year since 1988? Does not that confirm the success of the Government's policy of introducing family credit?

Yes, the Government's success in introducing that policy was welcomed only last week in a report from the Policy Studies Institute, which revealed that family credit was a benefit. The recent changes that we have announced in relation to child care will be popular and will help low-income families still further.

How can the Minister justify subsidising very low-paying, exploitative employers by using a benefit in that way? Should not we be trying to increase the wages paid by such employers, rather than subsidising them with taxpayers' money?

The biggest determinant of family credit is the age and number of children, not any variant in the wages paid.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received as to the impact of reductions of invalidity benefit on family incomes.

We have received a number of representations about our proposals to replace sickness and invalidity benefits with incapacity benefit from April 1995.

Is not it true that, by the end of next year, the Government will be on course for saving £6 million in west Cumberland alone by the switch from invalidity benefit to incapacity benefit? What measure of the effect on the economy has been made by the Government?

In essence, the new arrangements are designed to produce a system to meet the needs of those who are incapable of work because of disability or long-term sickness and that is affordable and sensible, and sensitive to the needs of those who really need help.

Does my right hon. Friend share the frustration of a constituent of mine who is an invalid on invalidity benefit and who read in The Daily Telegraph today about someone who is also on invalidity benefit but is playing a game of squash three times a week and about someone else on invalidity benefit who plays two rounds of golf a week? Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that the legitimate use of invalidity benefit is still being abused and needs to be examined and that we need not be frightened to acknowledge that fact?

I am certain that since invalidity benefit was introduced, the conditions for being able to get it have been altered and made increasingly flexible. I believe that, with incapacity benefit, we are restoring the original intention of invalidity benefit. We are ensuring that general practitioners are not put under pressure to passport people on to this benefit and that there is an objective medical test of those who should receive it.

It is the Government, in the shape of the Department of Social Security, who are abusing the invalidity benefit system. Will the Department reconsider its decision not to pay invalidity benefit to women aged between 60 and 65? Only this morning, I received a letter from a woman who will lose almost £60 because of this harsh, rotten decision. Will the Department reconsider?

If the hon. Gentleman will write to me about the particular case he will, as ever, receive an appropriate answer.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of pensioners had incomes in the lowest fifth of the national income distribution in (a) 1979 and (b) the last year for which figures are available.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of pensioners had incomes in the lowest fifth of the national income distribution in 1979 and in the last year for which figures are available.

In 1979, it was estimated that half of all pensioners had incomes in the lowest fifth of the national income distribution. By 1990–91, the proportion had fallen to less than a third.

Do not those welcome statistics show a combination of the effects of low inflation in the 1980s, the spread of occupational pension schemes and the Government's direct action in favour of pensioners in keeping up benefit levels?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In 1979, only 77 per cent. of pensioners had additional income on top of state benefits but, in the most recent year for which figures are available, the proportion had risen to 85 per cent.

Will the Secretary of State now tell the House which poor people occupy the position at the bottom of the income scale once occupied by pensioners?

By and large, of course, the well-being of the population as a whole has increased. However, it is true that pensioners have done disproportionately well. Clearly, there has been a rise in the number of unemployed people, who therefore form a larger proportion of those on low income.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a further statement on the work of his Department's Maxwell pensions unit.

The Maxwell pensions unit continues to work in a variety of ways to encourage an early resolution to the Maxwell pensions dispute. A speedy settlement must be in everyone's best interests, especially those of the pensioners.

Although I welcome the recent out-of-court settlements, what practical difference are they likely to make to the thousands of pensioners in, for example, staff and works schemes, who are still desperately anxious about their future?

The drip-feed funding from the Maxwell pensioners trust will last longer if some of the schemes are able to reduce their calls on the trust. To date, 60 per cent. of trust funding has gone to the Maxwell Communication Corporation works scheme. I hope that, in the light of the settlements, the scheme's trustees will be able to make a substantial reduction in their calls on the trust.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to review the position regarding grants and loans from the social fund.

Our routine monitoring arrangements for the discretionary social fund already allow us to keep its operation under regular scrutiny.

Will the Minister consider extending the provision for people such as two of my constituents? After many months of unemployment, they have recently managed to obtain casual work, but they cannot afford the fare to travel across London to take up that employment, and they have found that a loan from the social fund is not available.

The social fund was not introduced to provide help with travel to work. The Department of Employment has a variety of schemes, including schemes to pay for travel for those who are being interviewed for jobs. It is right that once people are in work—unless they are entitled to family credit in certain circumstances—the responsibility for travel is theirs.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that every social fund loan repaid is money that is then available to help someone else on income support?

It has been a feature of the success of the social fund that the resources can be recycled to help many more people than were helped under any previous scheme.

Does the Minister not realise that his monitoring has led to a crisis in social fund loans? Department of Social Security offices throughout the country report that they can give loans only to people who are in the highest risk category. When will the Minister put more money into the system so that people can be treated fairly, whether they walk through the door at the beginning of the financial year or at the end of it?

There has been a substantial increase in the social fund—by 15 per cent. over the past 12 months and by 50 per cent. since April 1991. We have responded to the increased needs of the social fund over that period.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received from voluntary organisations with regard to top-up payments for old people living in private nursing homes; and if he will make a statement.

Income support is now given to 281,000 people in residential care and nursing homes at a cost of £2.5 billion, compared with support for just 12,000 at a cost of £10 million in 1979. We have regular contact with voluntary organisations and others on all aspects of the system, including the income support limits, but I have to say that we have received very few recently in relation to top-up payments.

Obviously, the Minister neglects to answer the question. Is he aware of the fears and anxieties of carers who have been looking after elderly people and who find that their homes could be sold over their heads because of the inhuman approach by his Department to the top-up procedure? When will he accept that hardships will be caused to many of the carers? What does he intend to do about that?

With respect, I did answer the hon. Gentleman's question. He asked what representations I had received and I said that we had received very few, especially in relation to the top-up payments. Practically all the limits have increased in real terms since 1985. The limit for people in residential care homes increased by 13 per cent. in real terms and that for those in nursing homes by 36 per cent. between April 1985 and April 1993. We shall, of course, keep the limits very much under review. I shall be happy to receive representations in the manner that the hon. Gentleman mentions at any time.

Will the Minister accept that I am surprised that he has had few representations on the matter of top-up, against the background of local authorities now negotiating fees that are higher than nationally set income support levels? Will the Minister agree to see a small delegation, perhaps consisting of the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), myself and representatives of some voluntary groups associated with the problem, in order further to discuss the matter?

I would, without any problems, but I repeat to the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) and to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) that I saw a group not too long ago. We discussed a range of items, but, since the increase that we have made, we have not received many expressions of concern about that matter. That is because we do not believe that the gap between income support limits and costs is widening.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the payments have increased 250 times in cash terms? Does not that underline the commitment of the Government and the hypocrisy of the Opposition?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He is talking about the £2.5 billion income support expenditure during the currency of the Government, compared with just £10 million in 1979—true evidence of commitment to people properly in need.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he last met representatives of Age Concern to discuss income support payments to older people.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security met representatives of Age Concern last February. I also met Age Concern representatives in July last year.

Is the Minister aware that several voluntary organisations concerned with older people are worried that a number of income support claimants are wrongly placed in residential care and nursing homes? In view of the ombudsman's recent report on Leeds healthcare, what steps are being taken by the Department to review cases independently of people in residential and nursing care homes, to ensure that they actually need that form of care when they receive payments from the Department—people with preserved status?

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. We will certainly study the report that he mentions and other reports on the matter.

Is my hon. Friend aware that what my elderly and retired constituents really want is certainty of income, particularly in these days of very low interest rates? When will the guaranteed income bonds be available, so that my constituents can have the benefit of the granny bonds to which they are looking forward?

My hon. Friend raises a matter on which my colleagues in the Treasury are expert—whether the bonds are available shortly or available already.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of pensioners now have some other incomes from occupational pensions, savings and state earnings-related pension scheme in addition to basic state pension.

An estimated 84 per cent. of pensioners receive income from savings or an occupational pension, in addition to basic retirement pension. Thirty nine per cent. receive state earnings-related pension in addition to basic retirement pension.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, although Britain is increasing pensions in accordance with the rate of inflation, the Governments of France, Germany, Italy and Portugal are reducing benefits? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that earnings-related schemes in other European countries mean that low earners receive low pensions, but without the comprehensive network of support that only Britain provides?

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. We have taken care to ensure that pensioners are protected against inflation. This year, of course, we are increasing pensions faster than inflation, to allow people some extra to cope with VAT on fuel, even though the Opposition voted against that measure and that increase. Not one of them voted for it. We in this country are far better off than those in many continental countries, where people face pensions that are being cut or that are entirely earnings-related and therefore significantly lower than ours for those who were low-earners during their working lives.

Is not it a scandal that a large number of people have come out of occupational pension schemes and gone into private pension schemes as a result of the encouragement of, and inducements from, the Government, and have found themselves with pension terms that are much worse than before? What will the Government do about that? The Government are responsible for those people being deceived.

As the hon. Gentleman may know, the Securities and Investments Board issued a statement today on its progress so far in investigating people who have opted out of occupational funds and gone into private pension funds. It has the Government's support in looking at that matter thoroughly and making sure that remedies are applied where they are found to be necessary.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that although the important decision on SERPS was taken some years ago, it will start to apply only at the beginning of the next century? That is why the country needs to think carefully about long-term pension provision—not for people who are about to move to pensions but certainly for people under 40? Is not that exactly what is happening on the continent?

We have improved the position for those over 30 by boosting the rebate for over-30s since April last year. That ensures that it should be attractive for people, even if they are over 30, to opt out of SERPS into private pensions. In accordance with our manifesto commitment, we are considering introducing age-related rebates which will make it equally attractive for people of all ages to opt for private pensions.

Is not the Minister concerned about the atmosphere of scandal that now surrounds the sale of private pensions? Has he studied the figures featured in the Financial Times today which suggest that 60 per cent. of the 5 million people who have taken out private pension cover since 1988 are contributing only the basic SERPS opt-out figure and many of them therefore are likely to be very inadequately provided for on retirement? If he wishes to protect people in private pensions, what does he intend to do about the estimate that, since 1988, between £400 million and £1.3 billion of the money contributed by the taxpayer to encourage the pension provision of those people has been taken in commission? Should not he be acting on that now?

If we had not allowed people the opportunity to opt for private pensions when their firm did not have occupational pensions, many of those 40 per cent. who are making greater provision than they would have had if they had stayed in SERPS would not have done so. I want to see more and more people make additional pension provision over and above the minimum level laid down by SERPS and therefore laid down for those who opt out of SERPS. I am glad to see that one of the leading pension providers, Prudential, believes that 70 per cent. of those taking out personal pensions with that company are now making extra provision over and above the minimum laid down by the state. If the Labour party is against private, personal and occupational pensions and wants to re-nationalise them, it should tell the pensioners of this country before the next election.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what further changes he plans in the Child Support Agency rules.

We have no current plans for further changes to the scheme. It is important that the recent changes are allowed time to take effect, However, we have always said that we will keep the operation of the Child Support Act 1991 under close scrutiny, and we shall continue to do so.

Everyone agrees that fathers should contribute to the upkeep of their children, but there is great dissatisfaction with some aspects of the Child Support Agency. May I ask my hon. Friend to look, as a matter of the greatest urgency, at those cases where fathers have taken on binding legal agreements with their former wives to contribute to their children's upkeep? They have maintained those payments throughout and are now being asked, because of the changes in the rules, to contribute amounts of money that they either simply cannot afford or that, in many cases, will deeply damage their new family arrangements.

The impact of the recent changes should be a help in terms of phasing and also reducing some payments made by absent parents. It should not be forgotten that any decrease in payment from an absent parent will have a short or long-term effect on the receipt of money by the parent with care. It was always an intention that levels of maintenance might be raised and previous settlements were looked at very carefully both in the setting up of the Act and more recently by the Select Committee. Indeed, we will keep the operation of the Act under review, as we have made very clear to my hon. Friend, but we want to give the recent changes that we have made some time to have an impact.

Is the Minister aware of the double standards of the Child Support Agency? It seems to be chasing responsible fathers who have court orders and are doing everything properly, but it is also saying that it will dispose of such court orders and when there is another low court order for a woman, it will not take action or follow the case through until 1996. Is not that the CSA adopting double standards?

No, I do not think so. The Act set out a take-on strategy which means that by law some cases cannot be taken on until 1996. Just before Christmas, I announced that where it was possible to take on some cases before 1996 by application from a parent with care, we would look sympathetically at that—that had not previously been the case and it would be a help.

My hon. Friend rightly has drawn attention to the many changes and concessions which have been made, and they have been widely welcomed by hon. Members of all parties. Will he give the House an assurance that he will continue to take a close interest in the operation of the CSA? Unless we stop tinkering and take firm action quickly, many of my constituents and those of other hon. Members—honest, decent and hard-working people—will go bankrupt.

I recognise the force with which my hon. Friend speaks. Of course, I keep a careful eye on the cases and the correspondence brought to me. The system carries a great deal of good will because of the change from the previous discretionary system, under which the amount of maintenance paid to women with children was falling to extremely low levels.

The Minister's initial reply was disappointing. The CSA will be like the poll tax; in that case, one bit of transitional relief was followed by another, before the poll tax was finally scrapped. Should not responsible and respectable parents in second families have their interests taken into account by a further alteration in the measure?

I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but my earlier reply suggested how seriously we take the issue and how determined we are to make sure that the system is right. We have made some changes, and we want to make sure that they have an impact, but we will keep the matter under careful review. We all have a vested interest in making sure that there is a good system of child maintenance throughout the UK, and that is not a point at issue between the parties.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received about the current value of the assets held by the average pensioner household; and what was the comparable position in real terms in 1978–79.

We do not have the information on the capital value of pensioners' assets. However, in 1990–91, the latest year for which figures are available, the estimated average weekly income that pensioners received from their savings or investments was £30.30. The comparable figure for 1979 was £11.20.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that, in 1979, 62 per cent. of pensioners had additional income from savings and investments?

Reading.

I am not reading. That figure has now risen to 76 per cent. Does my hon. Friend agree that that shows that a partnership between the private and public sectors can lever up standards for pensioners? Will he pay tribute not only to the financial and pensions industry but to the pensioners who are prepared to make the effort to provide for their retirement in addition to the state provision?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right—even without notes. He points to a significant improvement in the opportunity for and the success of pensioners in saving. The proportion of pensioners with income from savings has risen to 76 per cent. That reflects partly an improvement in their incomes over the years and partly the fact that inflation is lower than they experienced in the 1970s.

Has the Minister seen the report today from the Adam Smith Institute which recommends that pensions be abolished, together with all the other features of the welfare state? Does not that report show the hidden agenda of the Tory Government as, time and again, the Adam Smith Institute's recommendations have been brought about by the Government?

The abolition of the state pension has been advocated by at least one Opposition Member, and not just by the Adam Smith Institute. We will read the report from the institute with interest, but the Government are engaged in sustaining the welfare state, not in ending it.

Is not the biggest form of pensioners' savings very often the house in which they live? Will my hon. Friend see what can be done to improve the position of the large number of pensioners living in valuable houses who have low incomes?

My hon. Friend is right to say that home ownership is an important part of pensioners' assets. Indeed, 94 per cent. of pensioners who own their home own it outright. That has contributed to the general improvement in pensioners' financial position.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the percentage change in real terms since 1979 in (a) average earnings, (b) the basic pension for a single person and (c) the level of income support for a single parent with two children.

Since 1979, average earnings have increased by 35 per cent. in real terms. In the same period, the basic state retirement pension has risen by 3.2 per cent. in real terms, although the total average income of single pensioners has risen by 39 per cent. in real terms since 1979.

Will the Minister comment on the "Social trends" survey figures published last month, which showed that since 1979 the share of national income of the richest fifth of our population has increased from 35 to 43 per cent. but the share of the poorest fifth has dropped from 10 to 6 per cent? Does he agree that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer? We are "back to basics" Tory style.

What is important is that since 1979 there has been an increase in income for all groups in society. That is what really matters. For example, the proportion of pensioners in the bottom decile of the income distribution, which was 31 per cent. in 1979, fell to 11 per cent. in 1990. That is a dramatic improvement in pensioners' living standards.

Has my hon. Friend had time to assess what would have been the effect of success by the 53 Opposition Members who attempted to stop the recent pensions increase?

If that vote had been successful, it would have deprived pensioners of several hundreds of millions of pounds of income.

Does the Minister recognise in his manipulation of statistics that 8.25 million people are dependent on income support whereas 3 million were in 1979?

Income support did not exist in 1979; there was supplementary benefit. I have compared the level of supplementary benefit as closely as possible to income support now. Income support now is approximately 16 per cent. higher than in 1979. That reflects the commitment of the Government to help people in a difficult position.

Does my hon. Friend accept that it is sensible to increase benefits in line with inflation and not in line with earnings? Has he seen a report that suggests that if we increased benefits with earnings, in the next century we would have to add 17p to the basic rate of income tax to pay for it?

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that increasing benefits in line with earnings would clearly add many billions to expenditure in future years.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people he expects to lose entitlement to invalidity benefit as a result of the measures introduced in the November 1993 Budget.

We estimate that, as a result of our proposals, an average of 130,000 fewer people will receive long-term incapacity benefit in 1995–96 than would have received invalidity benefit.

Is the Minister aware that many people who suffer from acute anxiety and depressive illnesses receive income support and that for them a game of squash might be part of the treatment? That is a reference to the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth). Will the Minister please give some assurances to those people whose worries about the Government's plans are making their depressive illness worse? Will he reassure them that his plans will not reduce their benefits arbitrarily and suddenly?

Our clear intention is to ensure that those who are incapable of work through either physical or mental disability receive incapacity benefit and that those who are capable of work receive back-to-work benefits. I can give the hon. Lady an undertaking that, in the objective medical test, special arrangements will be made to take account of mental incapacity.

Will my right hon. Friend reassure my constituents who are existing beneficiaries of invalidity benefit that if they are genuinely incapable of work they will suffer no loss of benefit whatever and that the benefit will retain its tax-free status? Will he reject and condemn the scaremongering of the Labour party that has suggested otherwise?

I will give my hon. Friend that assurance. At the point of change to the new system, there will be no cash losers, as long as people are able to pass the new, objective medical test.

If benefit records are held at the Long Benton complex in my constituency of Newcastle, East, why has the Minister allowed a local manager to purchase 22 Olympic jackets to keep senior management warm, at a cost of more than £300 a jacket? Would not the money have been better spent on—

Order. I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman. That matter does not relate to the question.

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the number of people who would lose entitlement to unemployment benefit in the current year if the period of entitlement were reduced from 12 months to six months.

It is estimated that a total of 240,000 unemployed people at any one point in time during the current operational year would lose unemployment benefit if the length of entitlement were reduced from one year to six months, although 150,000 would be eligible for income support.

Are not the unemployed paying for the incompetence of the Government's financial policies? Will the Minister give an assurance that if—as he and other Ministers are constantly stating—there is an upturn in the economy, he will instantly restore to the unemployed what is surely their right?

The Government are giving more practical help and advice than ever before to aid the unemployed to get work. The Employment Service is set to find 5,632 placements in each working day, having placed 1.4 million people in employment in 1992–93. Employment and training programmes are providing opportunities for 1.6 million people, which represents an increase of 50 per cent. on the past financial year. That is a good record.

To ask the Attorney-General what consultations he has had with the director of the Serious Fraud Office in relation to the length of time being taken for its inquiries into the flotation of Butte Mining and allied matters.

The Serious Fraud Office investigation into the affairs of Butte Mining plc began in June 1992. The matter is complex and the investigation is proceeding as quickly as possible.

Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the fact that for 18 months the Serious Fraud Office has been investigating a south sea bubble affair in the City of London, which occurred almost seven years ago, tends to bring our legal system into disrepute? I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that we need to control City fraud. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman assure the House that there is a prospect of the matter coming to some sort of conclusion?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman of that. The matter did not come to light until comparatively recently. As I said, the inquiry began in 1992. It involves inquiries in many foreign jurisdictions. It is a good example of the special skill and powers required to get to the bottom of cases of that nature. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the matter is being pursued rigorously.

To ask the Attorney-General what is the average time for a serious fraud case to be brought to trial after the accused has been charged.

The average time between acceptance of a case by the Serious Fraud Office and the preparatory hearing which constitutes the start of the trial was 27 months for the year ending April 1992 and 24 months for the year ending April 1993.

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that answer. Surely it is intolerable that it has taken so long to bring to trial someone who has been charged and against whom there is already some evidence. Surely it is not in the public interest or that of the accused that that length of time should be taken. How long will it be before the number of months is reduced to a more acceptable level?

The reason for setting up the Serious Fraud Office to deal with these complex cases was precisely that given by my hon. Friend—the matters needed to be investigated more expeditiously and efficiently. The length of time that it takes to deal with those complex matters is a great deal shorter than it was before the Serious Fraud Office was set up.

Is the Attorney-General satisfied that the Serious Fraud Office has adequate resources to investigate and proceed with cases expeditiously? Will he look into some of the cases to which much publicity has been given as a result of the delays and into prosecutions involving Ministry of Defence property?

Yes, I am satisfied that the Serious Fraud Office has adequate resources. When it has taken on particularly big cases, such as the Bank of Credit and Commerce International and Maxwell, special arrangements for extra resources have been made. I will certainly consider what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said about Ministry of Defence cases, but I have no reason to believe that such cases are unduly prolonged. A number of extremely complex cases—for example, in relation to the North sea—have recently been brought to very satisfactory conclusions.

Since fraud cases must vary in their complexity and length, surely there is not much point in criticising the average length of time it takes to bring a fraud case to trial. On the other hand, however, is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the longer a case takes to come to trial, the more likely it is that a company will be destroyed when news of the investigation gets around?

My hon. and learned Friend makes a good point, although that news is likely to get around at the beginning rather than at the end of the investigation. That the cases should be dealt with promptly and expeditiously is extremely important.

Does the Attorney-General accept that, in the average case appearing before the Crown court, it takes 13.7 weeks between committal and trial? Although the matter of fraud is appalling, the average length of a trial is far too long. What is he going to do about that?

I am not sure that I agree with the hon. Gentleman. He compares relatively simple cases that appear before a Crown court and large complex cases. If he casts his mind back to the early 1980s, for example, he will find that some large cases from the City of London took five, six or seven years to come forward, whereas the equivalent period now is two, three or four years. Expedition is extremely important. We have made improvements; we must continue to work at it.

Where the Serious Fraud Office has spent millions of pounds preparing its case, will my right hon. and learned Friend consider appealing against a grossly lenient sentence, such as that imposed on Levitt?

I cannot comment on individual cases, but a clause has been tabled to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill to give my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary the power to extend the power of the Attorney-General to refer sentences in serious and complex fraud cases.

To ask the Attorney-General what recent progress the Serious Fraud Office has made regarding the Asil Nadir case.

The Serious Fraud Office is ready to bring Mr. Nadir to trial as soon as he returns to the jurisdiction.

Will the Attorney-General tell us whether the Government, the Serious Fraud Office or he himself have been in negotiation with Asil Nadir's lawyers with a view to trying to get him to plead guilty to one of the lesser charges—as was the case with Levitt—so that he can get off on the more serious charges? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give a guarantee to the House today that in no circumstances will he or the Serious Fraud Office allow Asil Nadir to have those charges against him dropped so that he gets a plea on a lesser charge?

I know of no such negotiations.

To ask the Attorney-General what assessment he has made of the criteria on which the Crown Prosecution Service determines whether to prosecute; and if he will make a statement.

I am satisfied that the criteria in the code for Crown prosecutors which determine whether a prosecution should proceed are sound. But, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General announced to the House on 15 December 1993, the Director of Public Prosecutions is currently revising the code so that it may more easily be understood by the police and the public.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that we expect the Crown Prosecution Service to act as judge and jury, a halfway house, in deciding whether we should prosecute? In those circumstances, would my hon. and learned Friend have any objection if Members of Parliament approached their local CPS office about a case of particular interest to the local police and the victims?

I should welcome, as I am sure would the CPS, the attendance of any hon. Member who wished to visit his local CPS office. I am sure that such offices would be cheered up immensely at the prospect of a visit by my hon. Friend. Any hon. Member who visits those offices will discover that cases are discontinued only after close liaison with the police. When that happens, it is done in the interests of justice and it is not any criticism of the police.

To ask the Attorney-General what was the cost of the Crown Prosecution Service in the final year in which it was administered by local government; and what is the percentage difference in real terms, between that figure and its cost in 1992–93.

Before 1986, there were no uniform arrangements for the handling of prosecutions and it is not, therefore, possible to make the comparison which the hon. Gentleman requests.

I am sure that the Attorney-General will find that costs have increased. Does he agree that in West Yorkshire, for example, what has been purchased is a loss of local democracy? Does he also agree that the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill, which is before the House of Lords, threatens further to erode local democracy and to create great national interference in respect of both the police and the Crown Prosecution Service which may not be in the interests of justice?

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. Prosecution decisions are not matters for elected members either of Parliament or of local authorities; they must be carried out by independent prosecuting authorities. The hon. Gentleman might care to reflect on the huge release of police time and effort away from the time that they had to spend in the courts prosecuting, giving evidence and providing antecedents in the Crown courts. That has enabled them to become free for much more front-line policing.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the level of overseas aid.

Provision for aid this year is more than £2.1 billion.

Will the Minister explain why his Department appears to ignore its stated policy of giving aid to those countries that have good government and are among the poorest in the world? Instead, it favours countries that are major purchasers of British weapons, such as Malaysia and Indonesia.

There is no connection whatever between the sale of defence equipment to recipients of aid and the aid programme. The good government criteria which we apply to aid are extremely important, as are the criteria for tackling poverty. Eighty per cent. of our bilateral aid to developing countries was spent in the poorest countries in 1992–93. One of our priority objectives is to help developing countries to design and implement poverty reduction strategies. There is, therefore, no basis whatever for the hon. Lady's allegations.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, in an analysis of overseas aid, the United Nations said that Britain's overseas aid was equivalent to the sixth highest in the world?

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Britain maintains a substantial aid programme, which is the sixth largest in the world.

Does the Minister recall that the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Mr. Lennox-Boyd), who was put up to answer overseas development questions a few weeks ago, assured me

"our aid programme is not and will not be linked to arms sales"?—[Official Report, 7 February 1994; Vol. 237, c. 17.]

I repeat that our aid programme is not linked to arms sales. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said on 25 January in a written answer to the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham),

"During discussions in 1988 about the proposed memorandum of understanding on defence sales, the Malaysians expressed their wish to make a reference to aid. A protocol was signed during the visit to Kuala Lumpur in March 1988 by the then Defence Secretary, my noble Friend, Lord Younger of Prestwick. This set out the Malaysian Government's intention to buy defence equipment from the United Kingdom, with the details to be elaborated in the later memorandum. The protocol included a reference to 'aid in support of non-military aspects under this programme.'

After consultation with ministerial colleagues in London, the Secretary of State for Defence wrote to the Malaysian Minister of Finance in June 1988 to say that aid could not be linked to defence sales"—

On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Order. The Minister will know that I have asked for brisk answers to questions. Overseas development has only 10 minutes, so I repeat my request.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. My right hon. Friend said:

"As a result the issue was not taken up in the memorandum of understanding on defence procurement which the British and Malaysian Prime Ministers signed in September 1988, and which did not cover aid. Our aid programme is not linked to arms sales—[Official Report, 25 January 1994; Vol. 236, c. 145–46.]—

Just to be absolutely clear about this, and so that the Minister cannot be accused of being economical with the actualité, can he tell us whether aid, now or in the past, has ever been entangled with defence and arms sales—yes or no?

To avoid the risk of being accused of giving excessively long answers, I refer the hon. Gentleman to what I have just said.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that all this fuss is seen by business men in my constituency as, at best, humbug and, at worst, cynicism?

My hon. Friend is right. There is a rich mixture of humbug and cynicism among Opposition Members. They will not tell us whether they are in favour of defence sales, whether they are in favour of the aid and trade provision or whether they are in favour of destroying jobs—so we must assume that they are in favour of the latter.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reviews have been conducted on the completion of the first half of the current Lomé agreement; and what conclusions were drawn.

The fourth Lomé convention included provision for a mid-term review by February 1995. Negotiations with the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries will begin in May.

Is it not odd that the start should have been so late? If the Government are going to get down to a hard and proper analysis of what aid is needed, should not they be looking at regional structures in the ACP countries, particularly at the Economic Community of West African States? They should also be looking at education and, perhaps, at monetary union, which those countries, but not the European Council, are discussing.

The hon. Gentleman makes two important points. The scope for regional co-operation is a unique feature of the Lomé convention. The seventh European development fund includes 1.25 billion ecu for regional co-operation projects. Regional allocations are subject to the same processes as national funds. Programming takes place at the beginning of each EDF. That is likely to be discussed in the negotiations with the ACP countries, which start in May.

Does my right hon. Friend expect that, as part of the review of the Lomé convention, it will be pointed out that British exports to Malaysia trebled after the signing of the Pergau dam deal?

My hon. Friend is right. Our exports to Malaysia have been extremely healthy; in 1993, they doubled the 1992 figures. I hope that, despite the efforts of the Opposition, they will continue to prosper.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make assistance available to the South African authorities for the upkeep of that country's game reserves following the impending elections.

We expect to discuss future priorities for our aid programme with the new Government after the elections.

Is the Minister aware that enormous pressures will be put on the new Government of South Africa after the April elections, even if a civil war is avoided? There will be many priorities, but will he give us an assurance, on behalf of animal lovers in this country, that much of the good work that has been done in the South African game reserves will be upheld and that that will be one of the items that the Government will look at sympathetically in terms of aid to South Africa?

The hon. Gentleman's dedication to animals, especially elephants, is well known, and the importance of game reserves is clear. We have not received requests on this matter, but we might consider helping conservation projects with clear community benefits. Of course, we support the convention on international trade in endangered species. We spent more than £600,000 on elephant conservation projects in Africa last year. The black and white rhino, as well as the elephant, are flourishing in South Africa, which is a tribute to the game management there. I will certainly draw what the hon. Gentleman has said to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on aid to the Republic of Somaliland.

Since May 1991, Britain has committed £3.8 million-worth of bilateral humanitarian assistance to north-west Somalia.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to organisations such as Action Aid, Oxfam and Save the Children which are doing such excellent aid work in a territory which, after all, was administered by Britain? Can he tell the House what further help might be given to that territory, which is doing its best to re-establish efficient democratic government?

I readily join my hon. Friend in his tribute to the work of the non-governmental organisations that he mentioned. We are keen to continue support for those organisations. Their assistance to date has helped to re-establish water supplies and human and animal health delivery services, and to support mines clearance work. The increased assistance depends on the existence of a secure environment in which to deliver effective aid. We hope to concentrate future British support for rehabilitation activities in north-west Somalia on police, primary health care and education, but concern remains about the security of people there in the light of recent events.